On becoming intelligent voters

“Democracy depends on having a sustained conversation about our weaknesses as well as our strengths.” — Rick Shenkman

Historian Rick Shenkman is the author of Just How Stupid Are We?  This quote was taken from the interview in “The Ignorant American Voter” by Bret Schulte , June 3, 2008 (posted today on the DNC website by Sandi:  http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/PAM/CCNJ).

————-

This particular quote is truly profound.  It encapsulates the very nature of the problem within our country and this party.  We have met the enemy and it is us. 

“I don’t think you can have a democracy without people trusting their government, but if the last half century has shown anything, it’s that healthy skepticism about our leaders is probably warranted, if not a wholehearted cynicism….  What I argue in the book is we have to reform ourselves….  What I argue in the book is we have to reform ourselves.”

Shenkman points out the glaring fact that we have not been a responsible electorate.  As voters, we have been seduced by the superficial campaign slogans and pretty photo ops and 30-second soundbites that do not inform, but rather just spread propaganda.  We chant the slogans and wave our signs with religious fervor (on both sides), but we really do not have a deep understanding on the issues or the policies each candidate has to confront our problems and solve them. 

“What unites us are our ideas, and that creates a far different set of challenges for our democracy than for another democracy in the rest of the world.”

This is what makes our form of government unique.  We were united not by tribe or one leader (monarch or dictator), not by the rule of man, but by ideas and the rule of law.  We forget how unique this was at the time our founders framed the Constitution. 

“We have a vibrant democracy today, and that’s a good thing, but we need to simply acknowledge that the ordinary voter is not as smart as they should be. They are susceptible to manipulation and being conned, and once we admit that, we have to figure out how we can have a country of smarter voters.”

If anyone doubts this passage, then they haven’t been paying attention since 1968.  Starting with the corruption of Nixon and Watergate to the conservative revolution led by Reagan with the illegal Iran-Contra, the HUD scandal and the S&L debacle to the too-numerous-to-mention corrupt activities of GWB, we have seen our democracy erode and our confidence in government — all parts of government — betrayed.  Whether its the politicization of the Justice Department and their illegal litmus test hiring practices or the appointment of U.S. Supreme Court Justices based on ideology rather than judicial temperament, we have reason to mistrust our government. 

But we somehow fail to connect the dots and blame ourselves for this mess.

“My #1 suggestion that is easily implemented is to ask every college student their freshman year to take a current events quiz weekly. I think that would have an enormous effect on the country.”

This is an excellent suggestion we can all put into everyday practice.  Why not give ourselves a quiz every day?  This was the family practice at the Kennedy’s dinner table when Joe, Jack, Rosemary, Kathleen, Eunice, Patricia, Bobby, Jean, and Ted would discuss and argue passionately the issues of the day.  This practice produced three senators and one president.  If it had been today, Eunice certainly would have joined the ranks of the family’s elected officials.

Those of us who have children could incorporate this into our lives in the same way.  Educate ourselves and our children.  An easy solution to a difficult problem.

The Biblical interpretation of the meaning of “authority” was “knowledge.”  This makes a great deal of sense, because knowledge is power.

He who controls the information, controls destiny.  Let’s put ourselves in control of our own destiny by becoming more intelligent voters and citizens.

Changes in law regarding States of Emergency

 

In case of an emergency in the United States, Congress has long had the power to declare an emergency and set in motion all the U.S. provisions that deal with emergencies.  There are the Patriot Act and the War and Emergency Powers Act of 1933 and more.  Presidents over the years have assumed more and more power by issuing a multitude of Executive Orders, many of them secret.  There is nothing in the constitution to authorize these, but they are “the law” none-the-less.  There is also a National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html) and a Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html) which assigns all power to the executive branch in case of a catastrophic emergency.  

The outlook for our democracy in case of emergency has always been bleak.  Our democracy is in danger with all the above lurking.  Once an emergency is declared, we will live in a dictatorship.

The situation today is MUCH WORSE than even the above would indicate.  Prepare to UPDATE THE HORROR!

Congress has given Bush himself blanket authority to declare an emergency.  Today the president can himself declare an emergency any time he wants to for ANY reason at all.  We will live in the military dictatorship that follows.  Congress can do nothing about it — ever.  There will be no Congress.

There is no Act with a name for U.S. to look up.  Bush got his new power in a way more devious than that.

A few paragraphs giving such authorization were slipped into the massive defense bill, the 591-page Defense Appropriations Act of 2006:

On September 30, 2006, the Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill. Section 1076 of the new law changes Sec. 333 of the “Insurrection Act,” and widens the President’s ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order. The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or “those obstructing the enforcement of the laws.” The new law changed the name of the chapter from “Insurrection” to “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order.” (Wiki)

The 2007 Defense Authorization Bill, with over $500 billion allocated to the military, and which also contained the changes to the Insurrection Act of 1807, was passed by a bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress: 398-23 in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate. (Wiki)  They amended U.S. martial law statutes.  Maybe most in Congress have no idea what they did.  There was no public debate or media attention.  They were rushed through the Republican-controlled Congress before the 2006 elections and enacted into law.

Those paragraphs almost destroyed two acts which were obscure bulwarks of our liberty.  One is the Posse Comitatus Act.  The entire text of the Posse Comitatus Act is as follows:

18 U.S.C. § 1385 – Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

“Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both”.  (Wiki)

The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807:

The laws are chiefly contained in 10 U.S.C. § 331 – 10 U.S.C. § 335. The general aim is to limit Presidential power as much as possible, relying on state and local governments for initial response in the event of insurrection. Coupled with the Posse Comitatus Act, Presidential powers for law enforcement are limited and delayed.

Throughout U.S. history the latter had limited the president’s domestic use of the U.S. military against the American people in case of lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion.  In order for military forces to be used under the provisions of the revised Insurrection Act, the following conditions must be met:

(1)   The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to–

(A)   restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that–

(i)                 domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

(ii)              such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or

(B)   suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

(2)   A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that–

(A)   so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(B)   opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.  (Wiki)

Accordingly, actions taken under the Insurrection Act have always been exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act.^[1][2] (Wiki)

Now after 2006 the president can use the military as a domestic police force.  That is the first critical point. 

The second is he can do it by declaring an “emergency” in response to a natural disaster, disease outbreak, terrorist attack, and “any other condition.”  A blank check!!  For any reason!  Under the newly amended statute, Bush does not even have to notify Congress of his intent to use military force against the American people.  He just has to notify Congress after he has done so. 

Bush would take over by declaring a state of emergency, starting all the administrative procedures already in statutes and in the often secret Executive Orders and Directives.  It will be a military dictatorship.  Google “martial law.”  The Constitution will be suspended overtly or in effect.  The Bill of Rights will be null and void.  Congress and Federal courts will have no power.  There will be no rules, no protections, AND NO ELECTIONS. 

In countless practices for responding to such an “emergency,” practices by Cheney as well as others in government, there was never any plan for reconstituting Congress.  An “emergency” will end even the appearance of the United States as a democracy. 

I greatly fear that those planning to demonstrate at the Conventions in August could precipitate a state of “emergency.”  Or a terrorist attack somewhere in the US could precipitate same.  Bush could declare an emergency for that or any other reason.  There is some speculation that he might find an excuse to do so – to cancel the November 4 election if Obama looks like the winner. 

Hold your breath until January 20^th.

Liberty and Responsibility

In his blog today, Biff, asked us a question:  Whose side would our founding fathers be on today?  The answer is that they would be on the side of liberty.  This is the link to blog he wrote:

http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/anomalousbiff/CCGj

“Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it” –    George Bernard Shaw quotes.

It is the responsibility of our Democratic Party to see that our Constitution remains sacred and is not corrupted by the momentary desire to win an election.  If we cannot do this, then we do not deserve to be in power.

Now, let’s discuss why I answered his question that way:

Our constitutional framers were concerned about democracy and corruption.  It is about how money and power have captured our government for their own self-interest.  The following link is a discussion with Walter Mondale and others on the Church Committee about government corruption and the committee’s investigation of the intelligence agencies and their abuses

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zejpx_1Fs5w

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee

“The Church Committee is the common term referring to the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, a U.S. Senate committee chaired by Senator Frank Church (D-ID) in 1975. A precursor to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the committee investigated intelligence gathering for illegality by the CIA and FBI after certain activities had been revealed by the Watergate affair.”  (Wiki , above)

The Church Committee reports can be found here:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/church/contents_church_reports.htm

“It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” –    David Hume quotes

“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression;for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” –    Thomas Paine quotes

What does this mean? 

In his Farewell Address (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Washington%27s_Farewell_Address), George Washington wrote an open letter to the American people warning them of letting political parties become too powerful and dead-locking the government as well as the agencies of the bureaucracy (as bureaucracies are wont to do) encroaching on other agencies, consolidating power and causing an imbalance in the checks and balances provided for in the Constitution.  The outline of the address is as follows (Wiki):

Outline
paragraph topic

1-7     Impending retirement from public life
8-18   Importance of unity, danger of factions, authority of the Constitution
19      Strict construction of the Constitution
20-25 Danger of political parties
26      Checks and balances, strict construction of the Constitution
27-28 Religion and morality
29      Education
30      Sparing use of government borrowing
31-42 Foreign relations, avoiding permanent foreign alliances
43-44 Closing thoughts
45-49 American neutrality in European war
50-51 More closing thoughts

“9 The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts….

15 In contemplating the causes, which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by Geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavour to excite a belief, that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence, within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart-burnings, which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those, who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection….

16 To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a Government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions, which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a Constitution of Government better calculated than your former for an intimate Union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true Liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government.

17 All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

18 However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

19 Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the constitution, alterations, which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard, by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that, for the efficient management of our common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

26 It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution, in those intrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way, which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.”

Washington was dead on with this.  We are suffering the consequences of the acts he warned us against — imbalance of power, consolidation of power, deadlocked government, etc.

So, if hundreds of years ago, a man was smart enough to predict the results of such future mistakes, why are we not able to see the errors of our ways and fix this problem?

Why?  Because of the consolidation of power in the political parties, which are financied and run by the most wealthy and most powerful, whose interests are in direct conflict with the majority of the American people.  The answer is to get the undue influence of money out of politics and make sure that Washington, DC, is no longer for sale.

But this is not something we can depend on our elected officials to do, since they are products of the corrupt money system we want to dismantle.  It is up to us, the people, to make it happen.  We must be vigilant with our elected officials who are not up for re-election and run and vote for candidates who represent our real interests.

That is the only way we can get back to the original intent of our Constitution.

The imperial presidency of George W. Bush is exactly what the First George (washington) of our country’s leaders warned about.  Our elected officials have passed acts and other tools like presidential signing statements and Executive Orders to erode the power of the Constitution and consolidate the power in the hands of a very few.

It’s up to us.  As Rabbi Tarfon said, “The day is short. The work is long. We are not enjoined to complete the task. Nor are we free to desist from it altogether.” And Rabbi Hillel said: “If not now, when?”  (http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0311&article=031149)

State of Emergency and the acts that define them.

The subject came up about the Patriot Act provisions, so I scanned the Patriot Act again and War and Emergency Powers Act of 1933. Since the War and Emergency Powers Act, every president has usurped lawmaking powers. Their ‘laws’ are called Executive Orders (EOs). These EOs, not our Constitution, are what is governing America today. The War and Emergency Powers Act enables … the president to declare a national emergency, and thereby become a dictator.” (Wiki)http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.htmlLink

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=State_of_national_emergency

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Security_and_Homeland_Security_Presidential_Directive

Once a state of emergency is declared by Congress, the Constitution is effectively thrown out the window. The bad part is, we have state of emergency declarations that are still in effect from 1971. The state of emergency of 1933 was not ended by Congress until ~1952. As long as there is a state of emergency in effect, no matter how old, the president can effectively bypass Congress whenever he wants.   At the point the Congress issues a state of emergency, we effectively live in a dictatorship.

 Lovely thought, no?

The RBC ruling

The RBC’s decision set a precedent that is very dangerous.  We cannot let it continue to stand.

 

The rule the RBC created that required a 50% reduction penalty to FL and MI most of us were expecting.  They made a gross error in judgment in 2007 when they chose to exercise the “nuclear option,” so=to=speak, by using their discretion to penalize both FL and MI by removing 100% of their delegates at the Nominating Convention.  The committee’s decision to reverse that for the lesser penalty is not the issue that Hillary Clinton supporters and others interested in seeing our party’s charter found disturbing. 

 

The principles of enfranchisement and fair representation have been a party of our party for a long time now.  In Bush v. Gore 2000, we argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that every vote in Florida should count and that every vote should reflect the will of the voter.

 

Is there any more substantial way to reflect the will of the voter(s) than to allocate delegates based on actual votes cast?

 

I don’t think so, but the RBC apparently did.  The “compromise” drafted by the MI group did not follow our party’s rules or reflect fair representation as I understand it.  The idea that the RBC’s decision to let actual votes cast be trumped by opinion polls or exit polls and, worse, party pols who divined which candidate a voter might have voted for had they actually cast a vote and, even worse than that, took into consideration (somehow) sealed write-in votes that were declared invalid by the MI Secretary of State, is, as Harold Ickes said, stunning (and not in a good way, either). That we took delegates from UNDECIDED/UNALLOCATED, which is an accepted delegate category for our party and this nation and allocated votes and delegates to a candidate that was only one of several that took their names off the ballot. That we took delegates based on actual votes cast and reallocated them from the candidate for which they were cast to a candidate that same candidate that was not on the ballot. 

 

This goes well beyond the affirmative action exercise this year’s primary calendar became. We disenfranchised voters. We manipulated elections according to our own BELIEFS about what we think the voters might have intended had they voted or voted legally. We gave voters who didn’t vote credit for votes they didn’t cast, and took credit away from the voters who did vote by not allocating their votes as cast.

 

We were the party in 2000, Bush v. Gore, that told the U.S. Supreme Court to “count every vote as cast” and “let the vote reflect the will of the voter.” I sat there and watched C-SPAN with my jaw on the floor. I knew they were cutting deals behind the scenes during lunch, that’s just the way things are done. But I could not believe that it was my party doing this. Punishing voters and manipulating elections. I thought that was what Republicans did.

 

We cannot let this precedent stand. If we do, it will haunt us for many elections to come.

The economy, free trade and tax policy

At some point our country has to come face-to-face with the realization that we cannot spend more than we earn.

Giving unconditional tax breaks does not help our economy. The assumption that the wealthy will reinvest their capital gains in our American economy if there is no condition or penalty for taking the profits is a faulty assumption. To assume this level of patriotism from participants in our economy is flawed.  Just as we found out that, given the freedom to do so, corporations will not be good citizens in terms of labor health and safety, consumer protection and environmental protection unless forced to do so. We constantly hear the moans and rants from lobbyists and industrial advocacy groups about how our government regulations are killing their business. The alternative, however, is lack of governmental regulation destroying our environment, harming our labor force and even lowering the health and safety standards and protections for consumers.

Supply-side economics does not work except in the most perfect circumstance of complete market fairness. Unregulated, the markets controlled by the supers will not be fair and open without fraudulent manipulation by definition.

Using tax incentives to shape socioeconomic behavior is a tried and true tactic that has been used in our tax policy for decades. Clinton’s approach to the economy in the ’90s emphasized job creation and opening markets with NAFTA and other free-trade agreements.  The reputation and wisdom of these agreements have suffered from the public’s misunderstanding of the real cause of the perceived deleterious effects of free trade.

The problem is that even free-trade cannot really be free. This is where we have suffered the effects of so-called “free trade” as managed by the Bush administration. These agreements did have conditions and enforcement mechanisms to protect labor, the environment and the consumer.  The problem is that the Bush administration has failed to enforce these conditions properly or consistently.  There must be conditions, remedies and enforcement mechanisms to any agreement that guarantee reciprocity when we open our markets to others. Also, enforceable health and safety labor standards, consumer protection standards and environmental protection standards must be the part of any trade agreement.

Originally, the sociopolitical goal of opening our markets to our political adversaries and competitors, such as Red China, the Soviet bloc and the third world was based on the assumption that we could use our economic relationships to impact their sociopolitical attitudes and governmental policies by taking advantage of their increased addiction to the fruits of capitalism — profit and greed — against their Communist economic and political system. The concept of income redistribution would give way to priorities guided by personal profit and greed.

It worked, sort of. However, just as with the robber barons of the turn of the 19th to 20th century, in the absence of governmental regulations and watchdog groups to control quality, fair labor practices, health and safety issues, consumer protection and environmental protection within these countries and a vigorous CPSC in our own country, we now have lead in the toys shipped to Wal-Mart from China, and contaminated pet foods and even contamination in food and products for human consumption.  Not to mention regional and global environmental impact from China and India alone — poisoned rivers that flow from China to the Indian and Pacific ocean, toxic air and contaminants carried by the jet stream across continents and oceans and an exponential demand for carbon-based energy, impacting the health and safety of entire populations and significantly global warming throughout the world.

With every freedom comes responsibility. And it is important to remind ourselves that access to our markets is not an intrinsic right, it is a privilege that we must protect carefully. Reciprocity and enforcement tools must be the vanguard of any trade agreement we strike. To do otherwise is to end up with the situation we have now under the management of the Bush administration — a disaster for labor, consumers, our country and, ultimately, for our planet.

Likewise with our tax policy. Investors tend to view their access to public trading as an intrinsic right of a capitalist society rather than an earned privilege. Sure, the risks are greater, but so is the reward. This is where the balance of good tax policy between Darwinian capitalism and economic redistribution must find equilibrium. As citizens of this country, we have rights, privileges and responsibilities as such to do what we can for the greater good of society. Finding that balance without excessively punishing the haves or the have-nots is the art of good tax policy.

To dismiss a tax system based on graduated taxes correlative to increased income out-of-hand is rather short-sighted given the fact that any taxes we pay should be considered investments in our society. A society that has no safety net for the poor and the disabled will breed crime and disease exponentially with each generation. The haves will find themselves and their property increasingly under peril of attack and revolt from the have-nots.  If you need an example, look at Brazil or most third-world countries.  The wealthy live in gated communities with guards armed with automatic weapons.  They have to have a team of bodyguards to protect them when traveling outside their gated communities.  This is not the kind of society we want for America.  But it is the society will we get if we keep going in the current direction.

Social programs for public education, job training or re-education and welfare are worthwhile investments from a socioeconomic standpoint, because it increases employability and, by doing so, increases the tax base, assimilating the once unemployed have-nots into the middle class, which decreases the tax burden for all taxpayers and, particularly, individuals at the top of the financial heap.

Herein lies the truth that the ounce of prevention required is far better than the pound of very expensive cure.

It’s all about oil.

The dangers of our oil-based economy have been growing for decades. We first saw the “writing on the wall” in the ’70s during the oil embargo.  Even before the fall of the U.S.-propped-up reign of the Shah of Iran in the ’70s, anti-Americanism has dominated the Middle East. OPEC is a foreign monopoly that controls energy prices throughout the world, and out-of-control, unregulated markets have taken the ball down the field to the end zone.  It is no mistake that Russia has aligned itself with Iran and tried to take over Afghanistan.  The plan was to achieve world domination through controlling oil and access to oil.

The war between the Soviet Union and the U.S. and Red China, it satellites and the U.S. are the same. Khrushchev warned he would bury us economically, and, although the Communist system may have failed the first time around, Putin has revived a hybrid system with Russian mob influence that may finish the job.

It first became apparent when he took away the freedom of the press by executing journalists and closing newspapers and broadcast media.  He who controls the information, controls destiny.

The war in Iraq is having the same effect on our economy that the Viet Nam war had in the ’60s and ’70s. During LBJ’s administration, he made the decision to abandon the gold standard in order to hide the inflation caused by the war. By the time Nixon got into office, we had such high inflation that the gold standard had to be abandoned altogether or cause a breakdown in our monetary system. By the time Carter took office, the damage had been done and our ability to recover from it was seriously limited.  Reagan changed the focus of the American economy and its people by engaging in an arms race with the Soviet Union that eventually brought it down, but it also caused the U.S. to incur serious debt.  Clinton turned the economy around and had us back on the right track, but the GWB took over and single-handedly destroyed our economy, got us into a war of choice that we could not afford and, consequently raised the national debt to unheard of levels.  Since abandoning the gold standard in the ’70s, we have been the victim of the unbridled, unregulated currency market where those who hold our debt manipulate the value of our currency to get us deeper and deeper into debt.

GWB’s war in Iraq and mismanagement of the economy has put the finish on us. We are facing a global depression the likes of which we have never seen in our lifetimes, and even our grandparents, who went through the Great Depression, will not have experienced.  There are already food riots in Bangladesh, Africa, Haiti and the far east.

The first order of business for America is to move from an oil-based economy to renewable, environmentally friendly sources of energy. Once we have freed ourselves from that slavery, we can control our own economy and manage our debt and monetary system. Until then, we have set ourselves up to be the greatest victim of our own greed and sloth.

We cannot help a starving world unless we can first feed ourselves, and that means facing the economic crisis created by our oil-based economy as if it were a national security challenge, because it truly is.

More interesting info about the oil market:

 

http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/griffith/Cxv9/commentary#comment-gG5Cfj

Let’s play a game — name that GWB success!

So far I haven’t found anything that was truly a success that could be actually attributed to this administration.   Can you?  If so, let us know what it is!

The surge worked because the Sunni insurgents independently and voluntarily turned against Al Quaeda and the U.S. government merely armed and funded them. The initial “idea” or conversion originated from the Sunnis.  The sheik who helped us was eventually assassinated after we got out troops up to full surge strength.  So much for the surge.

The latest floods in the midwest and the fires in CA indicate the administration has not yet learned from Katrina. So much for FEMA.

Homeland Security has not made our homeland more secure.  Can anyone tell me a corresponding reaction to a change in the color-coded alert system?  What do I do differently if it is yellow?  Or orange?  Or red, God forbid?

Osama bin Laden has not yet been captured. Afghanistan is falling into chaos and the NATO commanders say they need about 10,000 more troops just to keep the situation where it is, not to succeed. So much for Afghanistan.

Iraq has already gone through ethnic cleansing, so the violence between Sunni and Shia is down, but Iran is playing a larger and larger role in this conflict. So much for Iraq.

Oil prices are skyrocketing because of the chaos in the Middle East caused by the Iraq War, the administration abandoning the Israeli-Palestinian peace process until just recently, and now the administration is beating the drum for war with Iran and letting the speculators artificially drive up the price of oil for profit’s sake. So much for Iraqi oil paying for the invasion and bringing down the price of oil for Americans.

Because of the mortgage and credit crisis, many homeowners are now homesless, many contruction workers and companies are out of business (lost jobs) and many municipalities are burdened with mowing down perfectly good housing in order to prevent squatters and criminals from taking over neighborhoods — all at the taxpayers’ expense. The mortgage crisis happened because most regulatory authority had been removed, so mortgage brokers and predatory lenders reaped havoc upon the housing industry. So much for regulatory management of lenders.

The stock market has lost significant volume in the last two years, particularly this year because all economic indicators are bad. So much for the economy.Inflation is at its worst since the Carter administration (post-VietNam War).  So much for currency management.

Because the economy is bad, companies are laying off workers and closing plants. We have lost jobs in the hundreds of thousands since the beginning of this year, and unemployment is at its highest rate since the Reagan administration. So much for good jobs with good wages.

The unfunded mandate of No Child Left Behind has left all children behind and the states holding the bag for all the costs of the mandatory, but unfunded requirements.  Teachers are teaching tests, not how to think creatively and scientifically, not teaching subjects.  They spend more hours filling out reports, which allots less time for actual teaching.  So much for improving our public education system.

Crime is up.  Teen pregnancy is up.  Drug use is up.  STDs are up.  Health care costs are up.  And no programs administered by or created by this administration have improved these situations.  So much for the health, safety and welfare of American citizens.

The Constitution of the United States has been compromised by corruption hidden with classifying all documents as secret, therefore not available for public examination, by the abuse of executive privilege to undermine Congrss’ oversight obligations, by politization of the Justice Department and use of the JD to prosecute political rivals, by illegal warrantless domestic surveillance of American citizens, by creating another court system for non-comtatant detainees that provides no human rights, due process or habeas corpus restrictions, by violating our own laws and the Geneva Accords with torture of prisoners either directly or through rendition, by presidential signing statements that declare the president and his administration are above the law, just to name a few.  So much for constitutionally protected rights and freedoms.  So much for the Constitution and accountability in government.

I guess I’d better stop here before I go postal! Can you add to the list or refute the ones I have already mentioned?

The atrocity of Gitmo — further horrors revealed.

The writ of habeas corpus (requiring a warrant to search or take someone into custody) and due process (fair trial) are two of the most basic of democratic (small ”d”) principles.  No government, no society can expect to last long that does not have as a fundamental principle of its existence to be justice.  Injustice breeds revolution and chaos.  With the exception of an orderly transfer of power, there is not much else that is as important to ensuring liberty as are these two principles. 

The president has been given the authority to have anyone in this country arrested without warrant and declared an enemy non-combatant.  Also, our military and the CIA can pretty much do the same in foreign countries.  Many of these enemy non-combatants are detainees at Gitmo (nickname for our detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba).  Most Americans don’t know that the Gitmo detainees are not allowed to even see or speak to an attorney until they sign a confession of guilt. The attorney is not allowed to know the charges until then, and he often is denied access to the information against his client under the guise of the excuse that it is classified information of a national security nature.

So, how do you defend a client that you can’t meet, that must sign a confession before they are even assigned an attorney, that the evidence against them is top secret and unavailable to you, that the administration does not even have to prove it had probable cause to arrest you in the first place?

This is what the detainees and their attorneys have been dealing with.

And before you make the assumption Bush’s administration wants you to make about these prisoners — that they’re all very bad characters, too dangerous to be released or tried through our normal court system — let me suggest a thought:

Anyone captured by our military (on or off American soil) and anyone on American soil can be arrested without a warrant or probable cause, declared an enemy non-combatant, tortured through rendition (secretly exporting them to a foreign intelligence agency that can legally torture in their country or to a CIA “warehouse” in a foreign country) or at Gitmo, stay in captivity indefinitely, never see a lawyer, never be told why they were detained — all without the administration even having to inform their families of where they are, what is happening to them, why they were detained or what their future holds. All under the cloak of secrecy. 

One of the reasons the administration chose to house these detainees at Gitmo is because they have total security and control over the facility.  No visitors, reporters or even attorneys or other court officials are allowed on the island without express written permission from the Gitmo commander.  And you can rest assured that whatever news reporters are shown is only what the administration wants them to see.

If you were an innocent man and this potentially happened to you, would you trust the Bush administration to give you a fair trial under these circumstances?

If it can happen to anyone else, it can happen to you. And there is no one holding the administration accountable for any of it. This is crimes against humanity, the likes of which we have supported the death penalty when it applied to Slobodan Milosevic, the former president (dictator) of Serbia and Yugoslavia, who was indicted for war crimes.

So, why isn’t Bush being indicted and arrested by the Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity? He should be. As should Cheney and others who created, promoted and followed this policy.

The media protesteth too much.

An examplo of the media substituting OPINION for FACT.

Apparently, if ratings are an indication, it is more entertaining to see people shout each other down instead of have substantive discussions about issues.

I found it amusing during the campaign to hear the media complaing about every one else in the media discussing process instead of issues. While they themselves were discussing process instead of issues.

It takes no brains to report on the results of a poll. It takes hard work to research a story, interview experts and witnesses, vet those experts and witnesses, corroborate facts, etc. — all of which real ethnical journalism requires.

Much cheaper to conduct polls and argue opinions with factoids and propaganda.

Media creating news instead of reporting it.